Chinese General news resource thread

[Blitzo]

That may well be the case but that wasn't my impression. Holding a position that it is due to one particular reason to the exclusion of others is logically indefensible and I was curious as to how one would defend such a world view. Typically in matters of this nature there would be a primary driver and plus the opportunist who would take advantage of the flow.

I don't understand. Are you agreeing that it is indefensible to say that the campaign's aim is to ONLY act as a purge? In that case, yes that is what I've been saying.

The question is how much of this campaign's motiviation is to purge political enemies and how much is to reduce government excess. I'd say it is more of the latter than the former, given what limited information we have. Of course, any officials who seek to retain their ability to wallow in their excess will thus become a political enemy of Xi, but I don't think they count as the type of "political enemies" that are claimed to be "purged". Obviously it refers to political opponents prior to the campaign rather than those created as a result of the campaign.

Also, even if some political enemies are being displaced, that doesn't mean it is inherently a bad thing especially if those enemies are opponents to reforms with positive effects. Of course the opacity of chinese politics means we can't tell either for sure.

 

[Brumby]

I don't understand. Are you agreeing that it is indefensible to say that the campaign's aim is to ONLY act as a purge? In that case, yes that is what I've been saying.

That wasn't the genesis of my statement but yes we are in agreement.

The question is how much of this campaign's motiviation is to purge political enemies and how much is to reduce government excess. I'd say it is more of the latter than the former, given what limited information we have. Of course, any officials who seek to retain their ability to wallow in their excess will thus become a political enemy of Xi, but I don't think they count as the type of "political enemies" that are claimed to be "purged". Obviously it refers to political opponents prior to the campaign rather than those created as a result of the campaign.

Also, even if some political enemies are being displaced, that doesn't mean it is inherently a bad thing especially if those enemies are opponents to reforms with positive effects. Of course the opacity of chinese politics means we can't tell either for sure.

My opinion is that the current anti corruption exercise is primarily about party preservation because the excesses has probably got out of hand and government censorship is unable to cope with the scale of the problem. China has a long history that demonstrates corruption as a key enabler of dynasty change.

 

[shen]

That wasn't the genesis of my statement but yes we are in agreement.



My opinion is that the current anti corruption exercise is primarily about party preservation because the excesses has probably got out of hand and government censorship is unable to cope with the scale of the problem. China has a long history that demonstrates corruption as a key enabler of dynasty change.

Which administration doesn't have self preservation as the primary objective? First objective is always survival. Once secure then you can push through policies you believe to be correct for the country.

 

[Blitzo]

That wasn't the genesis of my statement but yes we are in agreement.

My opinion is that the current anti corruption exercise is primarily about party preservation because the excesses has probably got out of hand and government censorship is unable to cope with the scale of the problem. China has a long history that demonstrates corruption as a key enabler of dynasty change.

I see.

Well then, as I said to doombreed, I don't think we should believe that any political group does anything out of good of heart -- it is all about holding onto power and retaining power. That goes for this campaign as well, obviously.

The point of contention was never whether the anti corruption/excess campaign is meant to ward off public discontent or not, but whether the campaign was simply an excuse to purge (which I think we've now agreed it isn't).

Hell, Xi has been saying from the beginning that corruption and excess were dangers to CCP rule, so I'm confused as to why people are preaching to the choir about this being a self preservation exercise. No one has ever claimed it was done out of the goodness of their moral compass.

If anything, the fact that anti china detractors (I'm referring mostly to general western media) has to point out that the campaign is motivated by self preservation is almost testament in itself regarding its success and popularity in China.

 

[shen]

in addition, if Xi is only concerned about self-preservation during his watch, he doesn't even need to carry out the anti-corruption campaign. Xi already holds all three key posts of power on day one. He doesn't need to rock the boat by going after powerful established interests.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I love all the arguments of how China is corrupt as if it was unique. Look at how no one in the US was even indicted, let alone imprisoned, for what happened in 2008. The reason why no one sees it as corruption is because it's been legalized. Plenty of historical examples of corruption such as coming from the birth of the auto industry. How about Western support of dictators? That's participating in corruption. Look at Egypt and the Arab Spring to which US aid was in question. Yeah Egypt got military aid but they could only buy American military hardware. Egypt violated terms of getting aid from the US because of the Arab Spring but American defense industries lobbied to have aid continued. That's corruption where the US government is laundering tax-payers' money in the guise of aid to which Egypt can only use it to buy military hardware from American defense industries. The only difference between Chinese corruption and those that think their side is not corrupt is simply the difference of calling it or not calling it "corruption."

All you need to know is China has had the fastest economic rise in the history of humankind. Faster than the self-proclaimed non-corrupt countries. Now is it because governments no matter what kind corruption plays a natural role? Or are people just lying that they live in a moral and ethical society with no corruption?

 

[broadsword]

There isn't anything in your reasoning that excludes the possibility of score settlement and whatever else that may get thrown in into the heap other then the fact that you said is baseless.

Thus far, we only get to hear about the so called purge from the Western pundits. There is no similar outcry from within China.

 

[Brumby]

Thus far, we only get to hear about the so called purge from the Western pundits. There is no similar outcry from within China.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[delft]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

True, but it proves that the purge, if there was any, was not significant.

 

[Brumby]

True, but it proves that the purge, if there was any, was not significant.

The contention was never about significance but exclusion which in my view is impossible to rule out especially when dealing with the covert nature of politics.